From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Design review of a car's external and internal coachwork, with notes on improvements.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 19\4\ Scan138 | |
| Date | 14th July 1930 guessed | |
| -2- (c) Clearance from spare wheel (about 3/8") appears adequate but would probably chafe with a tire cover fitted. (d) General external appearance is what we want i.e. a large body that "looks small". (e) Scuttle trim moulding would be better coloured to match so as to avoid visible distinction between bonnet and coachwork. (f) The "match" between scuttle top curvature and bonnet top curvature is not very good. Moulding on bonnet is lower than belt line and bonnet top panel is flatter than front of scuttle. Consequently the heads of screws attaching the scuttle trim moulding are visible from front of car. This is why we need a template showing (to say ±1/16" tolerance) the shape of the bonnet in the plane of the dash, so that we can make a corresponding template for the front edge of all scuttles. (g) I think the rubber-insertion running boards will appeal to R.R.A.I. as a distinct improvement. (3) Coachwork Internal. (a) Seating generally appears excellent with adequate knee clearances in middle and rear seats, adequate head clearances etc. I think the George (?) auxiliary seats are excellent. Although the body looks gracefully short there seems to be all the room one needs. (b) I should call the driver's seating position 1½" too low relative to wheel. Have not measured it yet. (c) The upper back rail of the rear seat strikes rather "solid" to the rear passenger's shoulders. This on the face of it appears to bear out Heck's desire to put this rail further back, even if it means a slight slope on the spare wheel. (d) Auxiliary seats are comfortable. I think we should want arm rests on them. cont'd.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} | ||